Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
May 1212:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Make the most of your break with the most realistic GMAT™ prep. Take up to $700 off select products.
Jun 1006:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
14 May 2026, 07:20
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
23% (01:37) correct
77%
(02:01)
wrong
based on 30
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Geologist: A new method for forecasting earthquakes has reliably predicted several earthquakes. Unfortunately, this method can predict only that an earthquake will fall somewhere within a range of two and a half points on the Richter scale. Thus, since a difference of two and a half points can be the difference between a marginally perceptible shaking and a quake that causes considerable damage, the new method is unlikely to be useful.
Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the geologist’s conclusion to be properly inferred?
(A) Even if an earthquake-forecasting method makes predictions within a very narrow range on the Richter scale, this method is not likely to be useful unless its predictions are reliable.
(B) An earthquake-forecasting method is unlikely to be useful unless its predictions always differentiate earthquakes that are barely noticeable from ones that result in substantial destruction.
(C) An earthquake-forecasting method has not been shown to be useful until it has been used to reliably predict a large number of earthquakes.
(D) Several well-established methods for forecasting earthquakes can predict within much narrower ranges than two and a half points on the Richter scale.
(E) An earthquake-forecasting technique, even a perfectly reliable one, will probably be of little use if its predictions never distinguish between earthquakes that are imperceptibly small and those that cause catastrophic damage.
Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the geologist’s conclusion to be properly inferred?
(A) Even if an earthquake-forecasting method makes predictions within a very narrow range on the Richter scale, this method is not likely to be useful unless its predictions are reliable.
(B) An earthquake-forecasting method is unlikely to be useful unless its predictions always differentiate earthquakes that are barely noticeable from ones that result in substantial destruction.
(C) An earthquake-forecasting method has not been shown to be useful until it has been used to reliably predict a large number of earthquakes.
(D) Several well-established methods for forecasting earthquakes can predict within much narrower ranges than two and a half points on the Richter scale.
(E) An earthquake-forecasting technique, even a perfectly reliable one, will probably be of little use if its predictions never distinguish between earthquakes that are imperceptibly small and those that cause catastrophic damage.
ankushsambare
Joined: 13 Jun 2022
Last visit: 15 May 2026
Posts: 137
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 107
Location: India
Schools: ISB '27 Wharton '26 INSEAD Aug '26
GPA: 2.4
Products:
14 May 2026, 09:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
Conclusion:
The new earthquake forecasting method is unlikely to be useful.
Why?
If a forecasting method cannot distinguish between harmless and dangerous earthquakes, it is probably not useful.
Check choices:
(A) Talks about reliability. The method is already said to be reliable, so irrelevant.
(B) Too strong because it says predictions must “always” differentiate. The conclusion only says “unlikely to be useful,” not impossible to be useful.
(C) Talks about needing many predictions. Irrelevant.
(D) Comparing with other methods does not prove this one is useless.
(E) Correct. It says even a perfectly reliable method will probably be of little use if it cannot distinguish between tiny earthquakes and catastrophic ones. This directly supports the conclusion.
Answer: (E)
The new earthquake forecasting method is unlikely to be useful.
Why?
- The method predicts earthquakes only within a wide range: 2.5 Richter points.
- A 2.5-point difference could mean either a tiny quake or a damaging one.
- So the geologist thinks the method is not useful.
If a forecasting method cannot distinguish between harmless and dangerous earthquakes, it is probably not useful.
Check choices:
(A) Talks about reliability. The method is already said to be reliable, so irrelevant.
(B) Too strong because it says predictions must “always” differentiate. The conclusion only says “unlikely to be useful,” not impossible to be useful.
(C) Talks about needing many predictions. Irrelevant.
(D) Comparing with other methods does not prove this one is useless.
(E) Correct. It says even a perfectly reliable method will probably be of little use if it cannot distinguish between tiny earthquakes and catastrophic ones. This directly supports the conclusion.
Answer: (E)
